MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393012085 · doi:10.5771/9780810872899-227

Comparisons and Conclusions

2010· book-chapter· en· W4393012085 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mary R.S. Creese, Thomas M. Creese

Bibliographic record

VenueRowman & Littlefield Publishers eBooks · 2010
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistory of Science and Natural History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Published in 1998, Ladies in the Laboratory provided a systematic survey and comparison of the work of 19th-century American and British women in scientific research. A companion volume, published in 2004, focused on women scientists from Western Europe. In this third volume, author Mary R.S. Creese expands her scope to include the contributions of 19th- and early 20th-century women of South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.061
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.132
Threshold uncertainty score0.442

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.061
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0170.020
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0100.011
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1320.018

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.166 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRowman & Littlefield Publishers eBooksSame topicHistory of Science and Natural HistoryFrench-language works237,207